done to the lesser fellow-workers who contributed with him to the development of his art, but the vastness of his own intellect and the grand balance of his judgment are not fully appreciated till they are seen in their relation to his surroundings. To suppose that the single efforts of meditation in any one man could have invented a structure so comprehensive and various as the romantic drama, is the height of critical superstition; on the other hand, a knowledge of the manner in which Shakespeare drew suggestions of dramatic action and character from his predecessors and contemporaries, can only serve to heighten our admiration for the incomparable resources of his genius. Much has been done to correct the disproportionate ideas propagated by Schlegel and the hero-worshipping school of criticism. The excellent history of the English stage by Collier, the judicious literary criticism of Dr. Ward, and the enthusiastic appreciation of the minor Elizabethan dramatists by the late Mr. J. A. Symonds, and others, have thrown a brilliant light on the state of the English stage before the age of Shakespeare. It can no longer be said with truth that "if in the labours of the contemporaries of Shakespeare, even the older who continued to write at the same time with himself, we can discover the resemblance of his style and traces of his art, still it will always remain doubtful whether we are to consider these as the feeble model or the imperfect imitation." 1 But something still remains to be done, and as the object of this history is in particular to exhibit the general march of poetic thought and imagination among the English people, I shall endeavour in the following pages to trace the slow gradations by which the dramatic art passed out of the rudimentary conditions, peculiar to it in the Middle Ages, into the hands of those who brought the form of the romantic drama to its full perfection. Two sets of external causes determine the growth of a national drama; changes in the taste of the audience, 1 Schlegel's Lectures on Dramatic Literature, Lecture xiii. and improvements in the traditions and appliances of the art itself. With regard to the former, one of the most remarkable features in the English romantic drama, pointing to its unmistakably national origin, is the extent to which its form has been modified to suit the tastes of all ranks and classes of English society. As we have already seen, the oldest kind of dramatic exhibition in England sprang up as a branch of Church education. The Miracle Play, originally acted in the interior of churches, for the purpose of familiarising the people with the mysteries of the Christian faith, was presently removed to the churchyard, thence to the village green, and thence again to the streets of towns like York and Coventry; while, in the course of its migrations, it gradually altered its character from doctrine to imitation, and began to exhibit many of those peculiarities of structure and dialogue which are preserved in the most highly developed examples of the Elizabethan drama.1 The Morality, as the name implies, involved a fresh step in the secularisation of the stage. Its didactic aim, however, still testifies to the influence of the Church, and its frequently learned matter, as well as its allegorical forms, show that it was in the first instance adapted to the satisfaction of the more refined tastes of the nobility. The performers in these pieces were either minstrels in the establishment of great houses, itinerant companies privileged by their noble masters to go about the country with plays, or "children of the chapel," whether of the King's court or one of the castles of the nobility. As these players supported themselves by "the loving benevolence and favours of the people," the tastes of the multitude had to be consulted as well as those of the aristocracy; and records of companies of players, attached to such populous centres as London, Coventry, Mile End, Kingston, 1 Vol. i. chap. xi. 2 Warton, History of English Poetry, 8vo ed. vol. i. p. 94. 3 Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry, vol. i. p. 42. 4 The Duke of Norfolk had his "children of the chapel" (Collier, H.E.D.P. vol. i. pp. 36-38). 5 Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry, vol. i. pp. 42, 84. and the like, prove that the love of the moralities as well as of the miracle plays, was widely spread.1 In the reign of Henry VIII. the centre of influence in the drama, as in every other department of social life and art, passes from the Castle to the Court. The word Interlude, now almost universally employed to denote the old Morality, seems to symbolise the dominant influence determining the taste of the age. Performed in the intervals between the courses at banquets, the new Moralities were necessarily made shorter than those of the old style exemplified in The Castle of Perseverance. At the same time the Morality still continued to be used for the purposes of instruction, and, when it was exhibited before popular audiences with this aim, the freedom with which opinions were advocated in it soon called for the intervention of the State. In 1543, the first Act of Parliament was passed for the regulation of the stage, and to guard against the propagation of doctrines contrary to those of the Church of Rome. A proclamation issued in 1553 forbade the printing and sale of books, and the playing of interludes, without the Royal License; while the widespread taste for dramatic performances was indicated in 1572 by the Act to regulate and control itinerant actors and minstrels.2 Meantime the growing refinement of the age caused great attention to be paid to the construction of plays exhibited before the Sovereign, and in such learned societies as the Universities and the Inns of Court. As early as 1514 we find the appointment of an officer, called Serjeant-at-Arms and Revels, to superintend the Royal entertainments; and in 1546 occurs the first definite mention of the Master of the Revels (magister jocorum).3 Elizabeth's accession marked the beginning of a rapid development of dramatic taste among the higher classes. Plays of a more elaborate structure than had hitherto been attempted were acted by the members 1 Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry, vol. i. p. 47. 3 Ibid. vol. i. p. 133. of Gray's Inn and the Inner Temple, and by the scholars of the two great Universities; while the children of Paul's, the children of Windsor, and the servants of Lord Howard and the Earl of Warwick, are constantly recorded as performing before the Queen at Richmond, Hampton Court, Whitehall, and Greenwich.1 With audiences of this kind a learned and classical education naturally determined the form of the drama; but the popular tradition was preserved in those pieces in which the success of the actors depended on the favour of less sophisticated judges. In the remoter parts of the country licenses to act were required from two justices of the peace, and the players performed in halls in the chief towns, and supported themselves by such money as they could collect from the spectators. The Puritanic sentiments rapidly spreading among the middle classes, frequently brought these artistic servants of the nobility into collision with the municipal authorities. We find, for example, the servants of the Earl of Worcester engaged in a dispute with the Corporation of Leicester as to their right to play in the town; and the Crown itself met with opposition when it exercised its prerogative on behalf of the players against the wishes of the citizens. In 1574 a Royal Patent to perform plays having been issued for the first time to the servants of the Earl of Leicester, the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London disputed the right of the company to act in their city.2 The next year an Act of the Common Council was passed to regulate the exhibition of plays which was prohibited unless the performance was first sanctioned by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, and a license granted by the Lord Mayor. From an order of the city authorities in this year we find that the gathering of the people to witness plays was attended with certain evils, among which are enumerated the infection of the plague; the corruption of youth; the wasting of time by poor people; the withdrawing of people from public prayer. 1 Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry, vol. i. pp. 168-212. The remedies proposed by the authorities to counteract these mischiefs were the restriction of the right to play in private houses, and the prohibition of all performances on Sunday. In 1589 this severity was increased by reason of the players having introduced matters of state and religion on the stage. Some of the playwrights had also joined in the Martin Marprelate Controversy, and the consequence was that all theatrical representations were stopped in the city.1 The great opposition which the wandering companies of players met with from the municipal authorities, while pursuing their vocation of amusing the public, drove them to provide a settled home for the practice of their art beyond the reach of civic interference. In 1575 and 1576 three theatres were built, one at Blackfriars and two at Shoreditch, and before the end of the century several others were added, of which the most famous was the Globe. To these play-houses a medley of traditions, made up of the practice of the itinerant stage, the learning of the Universities and the Inns of Court, the pictorial scenic effects aimed at in the Court Masks and Pageants, was now attracted as to a common centre. The audiences were composed of all classes, so that the dramatist had to take account of various and often conflicting tastes in the composition of his play. Such were the external influences which helped to limit and define the conditions of dramatic representation in England before the close of the sixteenth century. But a yet stronger determining influence was exercised on the genius of the individual poet, by the ancient dramatic forms and traditions which he endeavoured to bring into conformity with the requirements of his age. Fortunately, a great number of old English plays have been preserved by the industry of Dodsley and others, and from these it is possible to derive an intelligible idea of the gradual process which culminated in the forms of Shakespearian Tragedy and Comedy. It is true that our knowledge of the dates at which the surviving 1 1 Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry, vol. i. pp. 279-282. |